Re: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a)

Hi,

I'm afraid I haven't been following BLML so much these days, but with 
regard to the point where I was mentioned, the main issue was not 
misunderstanding the English, but it was how to translate the English. 
In other words, whether to literally translate each phrase, or to grasp 
the overall meaning of the sentence or paragraph and rephrase that into 
easy-to-understand Japanese. (This is an age-old question in any 
translation.)

A secondary issue was that some of the English was really hard for 
non-native speakers to understand.

My point at that time was that the lawbook was built up over a long 
period of time in rather idiosyncratic English (Grattanese, Kaplanese) 
and that it would be a worthwhile project to edit the English with a 
view to making it easier to translate into all the languages of the 
various Federations(*). (The counterargument is that everyone is coping 
with the present lawbook so let's leave it as is....)
-------------------------
*This could be done by a professional editor checked by a team of two or 
three laws experts to make sure the meaning wasn't accidentally changed.

Bob

On 2016/07/13 5:24, Gordon Rainsford wrote:
> I think the proposal is an improvement. It’s clearer and it gets away
> from having to grapple with when players make a choice that we might
> consider illogical.
>
>
>
> Gordon Rainsford
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Matthias Berghaus <mailto:[email protected]>
> *Sent: *12 July 2016 19:19
> *To: *Bridge Laws Mailing List <mailto:[email protected]>
> *Subject: *Re: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a)
>
>
>
> Am 12.07.2016 um 18:44 schrieb Adam Wildavsky:
>
>> Here's what the WBF LC is now considering:
>
>>
>
>> Current:
>
>>
>
>> …, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that
>
>> could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous
>
>> information.
>
>>
>
>> Proposed:
>
>>
>
>> …, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably
>
>> have been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless
>
>> there is no logical alternative.
>
>>
>
>> Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest?
>
>
>
> I think it is at least as clear, maybe clearer, but - while  I have some
>
> pride in my command of English - I am not a native speaker, so some
>
> nuances may well go right pass me. Having said that, there are many TDs
>
> who are not native speakers either, and some of them have worse command
>
> of English, and there danger lies. I remember when Robert Geller (AFAIK
>
> American-born) couldn`t help the Japanese Federation with their
>
> translation because he didn`t understand what the English version said....
>
>
>
> So if the proposed version is easier to understand for non-native
>
> speakers, then it is an improvement for sure, and I can see where this
>
> could well be the case. Some parts of the laws used to be called
>
> Grattanese by the British and were considered a foreign language. I was
>
> always deeply impressed by what Grattan could do with the English
>
> language, and what deep knowledge he has, but if (as sometimes happened)
>
> native speakers couldn`t understand his postings here, what chance does
>
> someone from another country have?
>
>
>
> Clarity and easy readability must be the goal, and IMO the proposed
>
> version looks like a step on the way.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Blml mailing list
>
> [email protected]
>
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml